No abstract

Clinical psychology emerged in the United States during the first decades of the 20th century. Although they focused on intelligence tests, starting around 1905 certain clinical psychologists pursued personality assessment through a specific, nonintellectual kind of test: the word association test as devised by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) at the Burghölzli psychiatric clinic in Zurich. The test was a key device in the professionalization of North American psychiatry and psychology during the early 20th century: from 1905 onward it was acknowledged, discussed, and applied by experimental and clinical psychologists. However, Jung's original experiments and the development of the test itself have received only superficial or casual attention by historians of science. This article attempts to provide a critical, streamlined, and detailed account on the origin, development, and substance of the Zurich word association experiments. By drawing on heretofore overlooked primary sources, I offer a new, critical perspective on the emergence and development of Jung's test while engaging with its main theoretical and methodological aspects. I show that the test was neither Jung's sole creation nor did it consist of a simple, straightforward set of tasks. Contrarily, it was the result of a highly collaborative, multilayered institutionalized research program on linguistic and mental associations. The program, its data and its assumptions fueled several debates and data-driven discussions at Zurich, precluding the test from achieving a stable, standardized character. As a result, the history of Jung's program reflects both the advances and the limitations of early 20th-century personality testing.

This study is an empirical analysis of the field's current state in Argentinian universities. Bibliometric parameters were used to retrieve the total listed texts (N = 797) of eight undergraduate history courses' syllabi from Argentina's most populated public university psychology programs. Then, professors in charge of the selected courses (N = 7) were interviewed regarding the structure, procedure, and instructional strategies of their courses. Results showed predominance of works produced by Argentinian scholars and secondary sources. Syllabi showed limited incorporation of primary sources, recent research papers, and certain psychological schools. The pervasive presence of infrastructural constraints and lecture-based instruction are seen as limitations that should be collectively debated and addressed by courses' faculty.